You are on page 1of 1

BALDOMERO INCIONG JR.

, vs COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 96405, June 26, 1996

ROMERO, J.:

FACTS:

On February 3, 1983, petitioner Baldomero Inciong Jr., co-signed a jurisdiction over him. Therefore, PBCOM (P) only have recourse against his
promisory note worth P50,000 together with Rene Naybe and Gregorio co-makers, as provided by law.
Pantonasas, holding themselves jointly and severallly liable to creditor,
Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC). Inciong signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a
guarantor.
The due date expired without the promissors having paid their
obligation even after demands were sent, hence, a complaint for collection A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is
of the sum of P50,000 was filed against the obligors. liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the
whole obligation. —Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1991, p.
The complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute 217.
the case, but the lower court reconsidered and the summonses were
eventually served. As prayed for by PBCOM, the lower court dismissed the On the other hand, Article 2047 of the Civil Code states:
case against defendant Pantanosas. With co-defendant Naybe in Saudi By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to
Arabia, only the summons to co-maker Inciong was duly served. fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do
so.
ISSUE:
If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions
Whether a creditor can file a claim for the entire obligation against a of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such a
co-maker of a loan? case the contract is called a suretyship.

RULING: Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code states the law on
joint and several obligations.
Yes, a creditor can file for the entire obligation against a co-maker.
The promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three When there are two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, the
signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of presumption is that the obligation is joint so that each of the debtors is
them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left liable only for a proportionate part of the debt. There is a solidary liability
to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or
collection. when the nature of the obligation so requires. —Article 1207 of the New
Civil Code.
Consequently, the dismissal of the case against co-defendant Pantanosas
may not be deemed as having discharged petitioner from liability. As
regards co-defendant Naybe, suffice it to say that the court never acquired

VIKKI J. AMORIO
OBLIGATIONS & CONTRACTS – JMC LAW